What happens when body-worn cameras don't function as intended, there are exigent circumstances, or both? An incident recently occurred in Narragansett, Rhode Island, where the "auto-activation" feature of the BWC system reportedly didn't function properly (see article).
BWC hardware or system failures are rarely due to officer error. Agencies should have procedures outlined in policy that cover pre-shift operational system checks and actions to be taken when defects are identified. Officers should not be held accountable for equipment or system failures that are beyond their control if they conducted the checks outlined in policy. Individual BWC or associated systems should be removed from operation, malfunctions examined, and, if required, returned to the manufacturer for an analysis to determine the root cause of the failure. While not always practical for some smaller agencies, replacement cameras should be on-hand and a procedure outlined in policy for issuance of the replacement.
The public’s interest in body worn cameras are at an all time high but the technology is not infallible. The public demands to see the body camera video in critical or controversial incidents. The overwhelming majority of times, the video will be available without issues. However, anytime you're dealing with technology, there is a margin of error. Normally this margin is extremely small, but nonetheless it can and does happen. BWC technology isn't always perfect. Having a solid policy regarding the handling of equipment or system failures helps to minimize the public's preception that the failure is due to officer error.
Principis Group can assist agencies by providing a comprehensive review of their BWC policy and procedures or by providing training on the development, review and sustainment of a BWC policy program.
Comments